I'm using just the Berk Review books to do my own prep and I've only just started actually using them (April MCAT). I did the first section of the first physics book today and I'm curious about how these scores correlate to the "real thing".
Is there any consensus on how the Berkeley review books compare to the real test? My scaled score for the first section of the first physics book was "greater than or equal to a 12", but I'm curious of how indicative this really is. Say I can get "> or = to 12" on all the sections in physics and gen. chem of the berk review books -- does this mean I'd have a good shot of getting a 12 in April for the PS section?
By the way -- (FWIW) I think these books are absolutely great. I looked at Princeton Review and talked to a few friends who taught Kaplan courses for the MCAT and I am glad I went with these books. They really stress conceptual understanding and logic to help arrive at answers confidently and quickly.
Is there any consensus on how the Berkeley review books compare to the real test? My scaled score for the first section of the first physics book was "greater than or equal to a 12", but I'm curious of how indicative this really is. Say I can get "> or = to 12" on all the sections in physics and gen. chem of the berk review books -- does this mean I'd have a good shot of getting a 12 in April for the PS section?
By the way -- (FWIW) I think these books are absolutely great. I looked at Princeton Review and talked to a few friends who taught Kaplan courses for the MCAT and I am glad I went with these books. They really stress conceptual understanding and logic to help arrive at answers confidently and quickly.